Powers v. State Dept. of Social Welfare

• Decision Date: 22 January 1972
• Docket Number: No. 46205,46205
• Parties: Helen POWERS, Appellant, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE of Kansas, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 590

493 P.2d 590

208 Kan. 605

Helen POWERS, Appellant, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE of Kansas, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

No. 46205.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 22, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

1. An appeals committee of the State Department of Social Welfare exercises quasi-judicial functions in deciding the question of an applicant's eligibility for

welfare payments. Hence an appeal may be taken from its decision to the district court pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2101(a).

2. The venue of an appeal to the district court from a decision of an appeals committee of the State Department of Social Welfare is the county where the original application for welfare benefits was filed and denied and where the fair hearing was conducted.

3. The Social Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C., Chapter 7, does not exempt an applicant for Aid to the Disabled benefits under Subchapter XIV from taking a medical examination when the applicant objects thereto for religious reasons.

4. The regulations of the State Department of Social Welfare which requires a medical examination as a condition of eligibility for receiving Aid to the Disabled benefits does not violate an applicant's freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

5. The requirement of a medical examination of an applicant for Aid to the Disabled benefits as a condition of eligibility and the exemption of such a requirement of applicants for medical care and for maternal or child health or crippled children's services under other subchapters does not constitute an invidious discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

6. The referee appointed by the State Board of Social Welfare to conduct a fair hearing for applicants who have been denied welfare benefits is a quasi-judicial officer and should not serve as an attorney to represent the State Department in subsequent proceedings in the same case.

Thomas DeCoursey, Gen. Counsel, Wyandotte County Legal Aid Society, Kansas City, argued the cause, and was on the brief for appellant.

Woody D. Smith, Toperka, attorney for State Department of Social Welfare, argued the cause, and was on the brief for appellee and cross-appellant.

PRAGER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Wyandotte County Board of Social Welfare denying welfare benefits to the appellant, Helen Powers, under the Aid to the Disabled Program. Welfare benefits were denied because of appellant's refusal to submit to a medical examination as required by the regulations of the State Department of Social Welfare. Appellant is a member of the Wyandotte County Tabernacle Holiness Church and her religious beliefs do not permit her to submit to a medical examination. On September 12, 1969, appellant applied to the Wyandotte County Board of Social Welfare for assistance in the form of Aid to the Disabled. Her application was denied because she refused to make the medical examination required. Applicant then requested a fair hearing before an appeals committee of the State Department of Social Welfare. The reasons stated for the appeal were in substance that nothing in the Social Security Act required her to take a medical examination and, if so, the requirement of a medical examination constituted a violation of her First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Pursuant to K.S.A. 75-3306 and department regulations J. J. B. Wigglesworth was appointed as referee to conduct the hearing. Mr. Wigglesworth was a member of the legal staff of the State Department of Social Welfare. On December 10, 1969, a hearing was held in Wyandotte County on the appeal with Wigglesworth serving as referee. At this hearing there was non-medical testimony presented to the effect that Mrs. Powers had physical disabilities consisting of deafness, limited capacity to use her hands, failing eye sight, arthritis in her back, and varicose veins. To substantiate her physical condition appellant offered only the testimony of herself and her two sons, Joe and Jordan, and that of her minister, Rev. Henry Utter, of the Wyandotte County Holiness Church. In addition Mrs. Mary L. Burton, the caseworker assigned to appellant's case, testified that Mrs. Powers was ineligible for Aid to the Disabled because she refused to take the medical examination required by the regulations of the State Department of Social Welfare. Mrs. Burton testified that to her knowledge the only reason Mrs. Powers did not submit to the medical examination was because of her religious beliefs. There was no medical testimony presented since Mrs. Powers had refused to submit to a medical examination. On January 22, 1970, the referee, Wigglesworth, made his recommendation to the appeals committee. He recommended that the appeals committee make a finding that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that either the applicant was disabled or that she was not disabled. He pointed out in his recommendation that without a medical examination he could not determine the extent of appellant's health problems or whether singularly or together they would constitute disability as defined in the regulations of the State Department of Social Welfare and applicable statutes. On January 27, 1970, by a memorandum decision the State Appeals Committee affirmed the decision of the Wyandotte County Board of Social Welfare denying Aid to the Disabled benefits to the applicant. The basis of its decision was the failure of appellant to submit to a medical examination as required by the regulations of the State Department. On February 3, 1970, appellant appealed the decision of the Appeals Committee to the District Court of Wyandotte County pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2101. On February 9, 1970, the appellee State Department moved to dismiss the appeal claiming that the Wyandotte County District Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. The basis for the motion was that the order appealed from was an administrative order rather than a judicial or a quasi-judicial order and therefore an appeal could not be taken under K.S.A. 60-2101. The question of the venue of the appeal was not presented in this motion. On February 18, 1970, the appellant moved to have J. J. B. Wigglesworth disqualified as attorney representing the State Department of Social Welfare in the district court on the grounds that he had previously acted as referee during the fair hearing. On March 10, 1970, the district court overruled the motion to dismiss holding that under K.S.A. 60-2101 the appellant had the right to appeal to the district court. The motion of appellant to disqualify Mr. Wigglesworth as attorney for the State Department was denied and he continued to represent the State Department of Social Welfare in all further proceedings in district court.

On March 12, 1970, the appellee State Board filed an answer in which among other defenses it contended that the venue of the appeal was improper for the reason that K.S.A. 60-2101(a) requires a hearing in 'the county in which such judgment or order was entered' and that county is Shawnee County rather than Wyandotte County, Kansas. On May 6, 1970, a hearing was held before the District Court of Wyandotte County at which time appellee orally moved to dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue. This motion was overruled. The appeal was then presented to the court on the record and the appeal was taken under advisement. On June 3, 1970, the district court entered judgment affirming the ruling of the Appeals Committee of the State Department of Social Welfare and denied relief to the appellant. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial which was overruled. A timely appeal was then taken to this court. The State Department of Social Welfare also filed a cross-appeal raising the jurisdictional questions previously presented to the trial court and overruled.

Since the cross-appeal filed by the State Department of Social Welfare raises jurisdictional issues it is appropriate to consider those points first. The points raised by the appellee and cross-appellant are as follows:

(1) The district court erred in finding that the appeals committee of the State Board of Social Welfare exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions within the meaning of K.S.A. 60-2101(a) holding thereby that the district court has jurisdiction for an appeal from the appeals committee.

(2) The court erred in finding that the venue for such an appeal was in Wyandotte County rather than in Shawnee County.

K.S.A. 60-2101(a) provides that a judgment rendered or final order made by a court or any other tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and inferior in jurisdiction to the district court, may be reversed, vacated or modified by the district court. The issue to be determined under this point is whether or not the State Appeals Committee of the State Department of Social Welfare in denying welfare benefits is exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. If so, an appeal may be taken to the district court; if not, the district court has no jurisdiction under K.S.A. 60-2101(a) to take an appeal from that tribunal. The test to be applied in determining whether an administrative agency performs a judicial or quasi-judicial function is set forth in Gawith v. Gage's Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 206 Kan. 169, 476 P.2d 966. In the Gawith case it is stated that a judicial inquiry investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist, whereas legislation looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter. It is clear that in the present case the order of the State Appeals Committee denying Aid to Disabled benefits was quasi-judicial within the meaning of K.S.A. 60-2101(a). The State Appeals Committee is required by K.S.A. 75-3306 and by the regulations of the ...